I've avoided this meta site until now, as I have not often felt anything beneficial could come from public airing of personal complaints, but I'm starting to get very irritated by the way I am treated, and a respected and kind moderator told me to finally air my complaints here. (Shog is the name of the moderator who directed me here.)

I am essentially tired of being followed and down voted, or having my threads closed in what I can only describe as a "vengeful" manner. I hesitate to post any actual names or links because I feel that will only open up the boiling plate further, but the essential breakdown of the situation happened like this...

I posted a question that a specific user with a lot of points arbitrarily deemed had only one possible answer. Their immediate response was to forcefully close my question, mark it as a duplicate, downvote it, and then redirect me to another post that they claimed was the duplicate - which had almost nothing in common with it.

The two of us bantered back and forth for a while, as people are want to do. I pleaded my case that the question was indeed not a duplicate, but they refused to listen. I had absolutely no ability to make any changes due to this other user simply locking it down.

This users exact words "You should take your butthurt over to the meta site".

I finally tracked down an actual site elected/earned "Moderator" (shog) and pleaded my case to him, providing links and references in detail.

He intervened, and re-opened the thread, and cleaned up many of the comments involved. His exact statement was that the topic in question was not a duplicate, but if it were worded very specifically it could have become one.

This was an acceptable answer to me. It was essentially boiling down to a different of opinion.

However, within a 24 hour period, no less than 3 of my other existing topics - two of which had already been answered happily, were suddenly largely down voted, and one of them was even closed (after it had been answered) by the same person that I had argued with in the aforementioned thread. This seemed extremely fishy to me. The reasoning and timing for all of this behavior was not conducive of any productive outcome, and again, two of the threads in question had already been answered, but were "closed" anyway?.

I spoke to the moderator (shog) again and it seems my words were indeed heard, as some of the effects did seem to be revoked.

I now find myself facing literally arbitrary down votes to most every thread I open, with no reason given whatsoever - including those that are answered and solved. Including those that third party companies have told me were good questions, and things that they want to consider fixing more obviously for their upcoming release of a product.

I am 100% certain that this question has come up before, but I have been told by no less than two people that bringing the issue here, to the meta site, is the appropriate venue. I am hesitant to make any actual links to the threads in question because to be quite honest I am tired of feeling powerless to do anything about negative attention.

What can I do?

I feel at this point it has moved to a level that is making it frustrating to use the Stack Overflow community. I believe the exact exchange of words between me and the person I argued with were ...

my words

"Stack Overflow is a community for people to bring their questions and become edified as programmers, developers, and other forms of support."

their reply

"no, it's just a Q&A forum. take your butt hurt to the meta site."

Stack Overflow is a respected community, even among employers and other developers. A bad record is not desirable, and it very much has an impact on how someone is perceived. I am not citing any claim that every down vote is an "abuse of power" or "wrong", but I find myself continuously frustrated that people are able to do this with no real mechanism for me to even know why. Despite my worry about linking, I will cite a recent example;

I realize that through enough tracing down different topics, the answer to this probably does exist on stack overflow, but in all seriousness, it was a good, laid out, well demonstrated problem - the answer given was efficient, conclusive, useful, helpful, and all around edifying to me. I came out on top, knowing more than I did when I asked the question. And the person who took the time to explain the answer did not seem to feel it was redundant/duplicate enough to belittle or berate me for it.

This question was solved, both parties were happy, mission accomplished. And then just a random down vote, without any presentation as to what is wrong with the thread? It does not make any sense to me.

Another topic that was 'attacked', or at least I perceived it that way, was this one here;

This was a clear, obvious problem. I provided information, I provided examples of the broken behavior. When I submitted this same text to Telerik, and they finally got around to my ticket, they even commented that it was a good question and one that needed to be baked right into their framework. But 23 hours after my argument with [REDACTED] it got flagged with multiple random down votes. After it had been closed.__ I do not find that to be coincidence in the slightest. Since then, Shog has assisted me in getting some of this treatment removed.

So, since I was told "You should take your butt hurt over to the meta site", that is exactly what I am doing. Please help me. What should I do about this situation?.

I completely realize that not every down vote is malicious, but the timing of this behavior, and the complete lack of any sensible feedback, is both suspicious and frustrating. I will provide more links to topics in question if needed, but I am a bit hesitant to, as it just opens the gateway for more fuel onto the fire, and I am perfectly fine with altering the wording of questions to resolve conflicts, but the lack of information, and the lack of any power to respond to it, is a maddening, hatefully infuriating experience.

I do not profess to be an asset to this community. In all of my time here, almost 99% of my time is spent in asking questions, not answering them. I can accept that I am 'less valuable' than someone with higher reputation - but I really never felt that reputation was what this site was about.

So, the matter in question is three downvotes?
–
Your Common SenseJun 16 '14 at 12:15

2

@Ciel, I took the liberty of slightly modifying your first paragraph so it sounds less ranty, to avoid your question going off to a bad start. Hope you don't mind.
–
Frédéric HamidiJun 16 '14 at 12:21

4

(1) Deal with it (2) ask better questions (3) No, we are definitely not "a community for people to bring their questions and become edified as programmers, developers, and other forms of support". We are a Q/A site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
–
l4mpiJun 16 '14 at 12:22

11

Small point: Shog9 is a community manager, an employee of Stack Exchange. He's was not elected. Not that it matters here, and if Shog had stood in an election he'd have my vote, a 1000 times over.
–
Martijn PietersJun 16 '14 at 12:27

9

Well, I would have voted for him too, before it came to light that he's telling people to post rants about stuff he's already dealt with on meta. :/
–
WoobleJun 16 '14 at 12:29

1

Honestly I should have known better than to even try to post here, as this is exactly how I expected to be treated. No, the issue is not three down votes, it was more trouble than that before Shog9 stepped in and intervened. He did not tell me to come rant, he told me to ask for what I should do. But I can see that was a fruitless endeavor.
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 12:43

2

I contacted Shog9 and showed him my issue, and asked if anything could be done. He stepped in, and intervened. After that problems continued to persist, and I asked what the appropriate steps to take were. He assisted me in many, many ways, but he told me that elaborating on my problem here was the best place for it. I did not come to 'rant'. I came to get help.
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 12:46

2

And there was no rant involved in this post. I clearly, calmly, and collectively outlined the series of events that took place. The only negative statement was me saying that I had avoided this site because I have never found public discussion of personal problems to be effective. That's not a rant, it's a person stating a perspective.
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 12:52

4

There is a thing called "serial downvoting" - targeting a specific user with downvotes. There are automated scripts that identify this misbehaviour and revert it. If you are the target of serial downvoting, it should be reverted in a day.
–
S.L. BarthJun 16 '14 at 12:54

4

@Ciel, alas, the reason I edited your first paragraph was because I thought "avoid like the plague" could have enough negative connotations for meta users to impact the reception of your question. You commenting I should have known better than to even try to post here demonstrates that I failed to convey this reason to you, and for that I'm sorry.
–
Frédéric HamidiJun 16 '14 at 13:01

5

If you did not come to rant, why post a rant instead of a specific question? Also, you seem to misunderstand what SO is about: you keep talking about "threads" as if we were a forum and state things such as the excerpt I cited. And the answer to "what should I do" is simple: If the user systematically harrasses you, flag one of the posts with a custom reason and explain the case to a mod. If not, just deal with it. Also, closing/downvoting things that should be closed/downvoted is not harrassment, and while personal attacks are not tolerated, being "nice" in communication is not required.
–
l4mpiJun 16 '14 at 13:02

5

But the meta, like any other part of the SE network, is not for walls of text. Maybe "rant" was the wrong word (I'm not a native speaker) but your "question" feels like an angry blog post complaining about a particular user and about your personal feelings about it. On meta as well, questions should be clear, concise, answerable, and applicable to a more general audience, not just you personally. And you seem to take things too personal in general - you were definitely not met with "intense hatred" here and I can't even begin to figure out why you'd think so.
–
l4mpiJun 16 '14 at 13:18

1

To recapitulate, this is exactly what I posted. 1. I expressed that I had poor results from this avenue of problem solving in the past, so had been hesitant in posting. 2. I demonstrated the problem I was having, systematically, point for point. 3. I demonstrated the steps that both I, and another, had taken against this situation. 4. I expressed that I felt problems were still persisting, and asked what else I could do. 5. I was met with a resounding response of being told I was ranting, and this wasn't the place for it - after being told the exact opposite on stackoverflow.
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 13:23

7

@Ciel You posted a wall of text where the actual situation is simple - you feel wronged by a user who downvoted and closed a few of your questions. We can answer this one without knowing your whole backstory, including it just wastes everyone's time and makes people not read your question because it's tl;dr. You also needlessly made this entirely too personal; if feels like you need to vent your frustration about this specific situation and user. All of this contributes to me thinking "rant" instead of "question", and contributes to this post not being well received.
–
l4mpiJun 16 '14 at 13:33

3

@Ciel there is a difference between a social situation like this and a programming question where users will need to reproduce the exact problem you're having. And if you had done some research on meta before asking, you would have realized that while there are many questions about negative behaviour like the one you describe, they are certainly not thousands of words long. But that's a moot point. I said what to do already in a comment - if you feel targeted in a way that is against the SO rules, flag a post for mod attention. If not, try not to get frustrated and deal with it.
–
l4mpiJun 16 '14 at 13:54

3 Answers
3

This, I will start by saying, is not a good question, mostly because it's at least three questions and a big long complaint. But things are a little looser on meta. So, I'm going to paraphrase your three questions so you can correct me if I have them wrong?

Do I have any recourse when my question is closed as a duplicate, but it's not? Yes, see this Meta question

Is it ok for anyone to tell me that my complaining and personal reaction belongs on a per-site meta, not on the site? Yes, but they should be polite about it (and I don't find "butthurt" polite) but can see how tempers might fray after long comment exchanges

Is it ok for anyone to specifically target my questions for downvoting or closevoting? Yes, within limits.

The "limits" are different for closevoting and for downvoting because historically only elected moderators and SE employees could close with a single vote. Therefore if an angry person clicked through all the questions in your profile voting to close them, nothing would happen unless 4 other people happened to agree. Now that the dupehammer exists, there is a chance of someone maliciously dupe-closing non dupes, but all you need to do is edit as shown in the link above and the question should be reopened. In extreme cases you might post on meta that you need help getting it re-opened. If you're convinced someone is maliciously closing your posts, a flag is probably better than a meta post to start an investigation (btw, I'm not convinced, just for the record.) However, be aware that if the question does belong as a closed question then even if everyone is sure the person's motivation for closing was anger, the question will stay closed. (And conversely if it belongs open, even if the closer was pure and generous, it will be reopened.) The motivation of the closer is irrelevant in the re-opening process. It may be relevant if a moderator decides to contact the user and discuss their behavior, but it's not relevant in the final disposition of the question.

For downvoting, an automatic process will catch and reverse serial downvoting. If someone brings up your profile, clicks a question, downvotes, hits back, clicks another question, downvotes, etc then those votes will be reversed typically within 24 hours. You don't need to flag or complain unless more than 24 hours has gone by and the votes are still there. Please do remember that downvotes are anonymous and it is explicitly ok to downvote for ANY reason - voters do not have to justify their votes or prove a downvote is "correct" or "right".

And finally please do take a big breath and not take it personally. While the site may or may not exist to help you grow as a developer (opinions vary) it is definitely true that no single person here is obliged in any way to help you grow as a developer, or even to be nice to you (though Be Nice is our most important guideline.) Some people may do things you don't like such as closing or downvoting, either for the good of the site or to motivate you to improve your questions or answers. Getting angry about it won't stop it and will only make you feel worse. Either learn and grow from it, or if that's not possible, just move on.

Thank you, I strongly appreciate you reading the true problem and addressing the concerns. So if I understand this right, the appropriate recourse is to first wait a bit, but after a time, continue to flag things that I feel have been targeted?
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 15:03

3

@Ciel, do you mean you are going to flag every single downvote? (Just to make sure: I sympathize; and I'm sure if I had that low rep I'd fret about every single point as well. But answering questions may be more rewarding than asking. Not for rep: it forces you to think more outside the box than finding answers for your own questions.)
–
JongwareJun 16 '14 at 15:12

1

No, I do not mean I am going to flag every single down vote. And yes, I am aware that answering questions is more beneficial, but when your life is in survival mode and you just have to churn out enough work to get by, browsing for questions to answer rarely finds itself at the top of the todo queue.
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 15:28

Moderators - and occasionally staff such as myself - intervene in situations like this daily. Sad to say, much of the time these incidents arise due to someone who isn't interested in learning, and who cares nothing for the time that others put in to try and help them. I have 80 or so emails waiting for me that I didn't get to over the weekend, and it is likely that a majority of them fall into this category... It becomes rather demoralizing after a while.

...Which is why it's so important that folks who do care are able to get their concerns addressed. Folks like yourself, interested not just in solving whatever problem is directly in front of them but also in learning about Stack Overflow and being a part of the developer community.

You were somewhat dismissive early in our conversation regarding the value of meta. I sincerely hope, by the time this is over, that you feel differently about this. Meta can be harsh at times, but there is a wealth of information here that I could never hope to replicate in an email, and a group of people who are devoted to making Stack Overflow work - fiercely protective at times, but just as willing to help anyone who expresses a sincere desire to make the site better. This is my full-time job, and yet I'm constantly put to shame by the ability of the folks volunteering here to analyze complex situations and cut the gordian knot.

Your question here was quite long, and tried to cover rather too many different things in one post - yet even so it was quickly answered, and answered well - folks here addressed not just your specific concerns, but also offered advice for asking better questions here in the future, provided links to related information, and helped to improve the tone of your post.

Flagging for moderator attention or emailing the team is sufficient for handling most one-off problems, but questions of policy or etiquette are best handled in public. Therefore, it is my sincere hope that, should you have concerns regarding Stack Overflow in the future, you won't hesitate to seek answers here on meta.

The only way a single individual could have closed a question is if that individual is a diamond. Much as I am in the camp of 'tough love for vampires (where's my spike),' I do not believe that diamonds should cross the line into incivility. "You should take your butt hurt over to the meta site" crosses that line for me.

edit: The existence of Thor's hammer has been pointed out here. Urk, that complicates the situation. OK, well, chasing an individual and applying the hammer to that individual's questions is really contrary to policy, is it not?

further edit: to answer the OP. There's nothing you can do about this sort of situation except what you did. I hypothesize that Shog9 asked you to post this here to start a more general discussion about what happened to you. The ability for one non-moderator to close a question is a relatively new feature; arguably this is side effect. If the hammer did not exist, you'd have a small number of downvotes on your hands, and I agree with comments that you would need to just move on. Having questions closed, however, raises a policy question about 'patterned close voting' as a more serious issue given the existence of the hammer.

"The only way a single individual could have close a question is if that individual is a diamond" - OP is specifically talking about duplicates which can be closed by a single gold badge holder in a tag on the question...
–
l4mpiJun 16 '14 at 12:46

Please explain to me how there is any sense in a topic that was resolved, answered, and in no need of attention was mysteriously and conveniently flagged in a negative manner only 23 hours after an argument with one of the people involved in the flagging, but the question was answered almost 2+ months prior and accepted? I would like to know the sense in that. stackoverflow.com/questions/22994494/…
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 12:49

1

This is about more than just one or two topics, it is as if this person is following my threads and deliberately down voting or closing them. It is extremely typical groupthink mentality and I was informed that this was the appropriate place to find resolutions to such behaviors.
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 12:51

1

@Ciel that is an example of a very bad question for SO. It is very unspecific and seems to ask for open ended discussion instead of a definitive answer - I don't even think there could be a definitive answer to it. Thus it does not fit the SO model and should be closed and/or downvoted. And this is even before evaluating that the question is only borderline programming related...
–
l4mpiJun 16 '14 at 12:51

And that is completely fine, I can accept that. What I cannot accept is that this sort of thing happened to many other topics of mine all in a rapid time span a mere 20-23 hours after the argument with Sparky there. The question had been answered months ago, there was absolutely no reason for it to suddenly become a focus of attention. It is not one I am asking to be fixed, it is merely an exhibit of behavior.
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 13:03

3

The 'but hurt' comment was not from a diamond moderator. It was from a regular user.
–
Martijn PietersJun 16 '14 at 13:05

It does not matter who it was from, I experienced frustration using the system, I went through the help documentation, I contacted what seemed to be the appropriate authority figures to deal with the situation, and in part it was dealt with. I was told that I should express my concerns on the meta site, and I am being met with intense hatred for doing so. There is clearly a stark disconnect between truth, opinion, and intention.
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 13:10

And yes, that is exactly right. Regardless of my opinion of what stack overflow is and is not, the chasing of an individual and "applying that hammer" as you put it seems to be in direct opposition to the entire purpose of the site.
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 13:19

1

@Ciel no, that's a false statement. As long as the questions are not wrongly closed, that's exactly the intention of that feature. See meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/255738/… for a discussion of it, and this is what shog9 had to say about it...
–
l4mpiJun 16 '14 at 13:21

1

@l4mpi I think these cases are different. Ciel has the impression that (s)he is being targeted individually; the post you link to is about duplicate questions from many different users.
–
S.L. BarthJun 16 '14 at 13:29

@S.L. Barth, yes, that is exactly the issue. I am not asking for every down vote to be revoked, I am not asking for someone to be banned, I am not asking for anything unreasonable. I feel my ability to use the system has been compromised and I just want to know what I can do. Of course some of my questions are not good. If any of you can truly say you've no bad questions in your past I'd be surprised to hear it. The problem is that literally immediately following an argument with a user, there became a clear, noticeable trend in the way my posts were treated that has not been there before.
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 13:31

1

@S.L.Barth that doesn't change the fact that closing is always the right thing to do when the question should be closed. If this is done by an user who combs throug another user's profile or by an user who randomly stumbles upon the question makes no difference at all.
–
l4mpiJun 16 '14 at 13:31

1

Yes, of course it is frequently appropriate to close questions. I have had dozens of questions closed in the past, and the exact, specific question I linked you to may not have been a good example because I will not disagree that it was largely opinion based. I was using the names and timestamps more than the question content. The point is that it floated around for more than 2 months without being closed, flagged, edited, revised, or in any way negatively touched - and then 23 hours following an argument with that exact user, suddenly many of my topics begin receiving negative attention.
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 13:40

So I will reiterate. My question is what can I do if I am being directly targeted by another user?
–
CielJun 16 '14 at 13:41

1

@l4mpi It's a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand, bad content needs to be downvoted/close-voted. On the other hand, targeting one individual is bad. Then again, we have a limited amount of votes each day, and there is no lack of bad content to spread them over. So in practice I see no reason to target individual users.
–
S.L. BarthJun 16 '14 at 13:49